Murray and the fascists at Middlebury
It's a shame since Murray has offered so much vital work to contemporary debates on public policy. I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone who rivals the quality, quantity and variety of his output. Losing Ground was pivotal to the early part of the debate on welfare policy. Check out my review of In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government (maybe the most important book on policy I've read) and my review of Coming Apart (can't think of a more important book on contemporary policy).
As for what got these students going-- their sense of his book, The Bell Curve-- I haven't read that tome. But here are a few of my thoughts about Murray on race vs. class and more important, his comments 10 years after Bell Curve was published, and even better, his recent efforts to make published summaries available.
Here is Murray's account of and reflections on the events at Middlebury (where he spoke just a few years ago, with no incident). Here's Allison Stanger's account: she was injured by the mob-- and was his host for the event, the sponsor of the program, and a critic of his work).
Here's an insider's view-- Dr. Matt Dickinson, a faculty member at Middlebury who runs a popular blog. And here's a broader faculty response. Alison Stanger later wrote about Murray's visit vs. Edward Snowden's.
As for news coverage
-WaPo, including a note about Murray's non-white wife/kids and the SPLC glossing him as a eugenicist and a white supremacist-- completely undermining their credibility. (Again, the SPLC is far more eugenicist than Murray could dream of being. Here's Murray dealing with the slanderous description of him by the Southern Poverty Law Center.)
-Boston Globe (note the dude with the "eugenics" poster, even though he is far more likely to embrace eugenics policies than Murray, who would far those deeply offensive)
-Here it is in the NYT and through PBS.
Here's some great commentary from...
-Jonathan Haidt and Frank Bruni on the Charlie Rose Show (I like Bruni's comment that this should be the century of social science, but maybe not...!)
-Van Jones on some of the larger issues, with some excellent metaphors, esp. on "safe spaces"-- well-defined and poorly-defined. Universities are supposed to be places where you build muscle in these regards, not be protected.
-George Leef with concerns about civilization
-Bernard Goldberg with an op-ed length and style discussion of the event
-WSJ weighs in too (but probably behind a paywall; try to Google the title)...
-actually reading what you're criticizing, and more broadly, other views (avoiding fundamentalism)
-Where are the liberals? Where are the professors who (courageously) live up to the values of the profession?
-accurately characterizing the views of another (empathy; see: Haidt for the Left's particular struggles here; see also: growth in Heterodox Academy membership has ballooned since this event!)
Another example, this time with Heather McDonald, accusations of white supremacy and fascism, ironic fascism in reply to her speech: her account, another piece, a piece in Reason, and video from Bill O'Reilly.
Another example with Rebecca Tuvel at Vandy.
And recently, the "tolerant" fun for Murray extended to Congress. Simply evil.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home